Why did the committee pick the rec district model?

These are some of the primary reasons the RGSC unanimously selected forming a Recreation District as their suggested future governance option for recreation in Essex.

The other models either did not have some of these features, had fewer of them, or didn’t accomplish them as well.

Unites community recreation under one independent umbrella

One budget, voted on directly by the community by Australian ballot each April with school budget and village election voting

Rec budget will be independent from other municipal departments or the schools

Recreation is a unique government service that relies in part on tax revenues, but also generates revenues through program fees. This independence will help to continue to allow rec related revenues to be used to support recreation initiatives. Additionally, this approach helps to minimize tax increases for recreation.

Greater transparency

All operations of the rec department will be directly evaluated by a 5-member elected board.

Oversight will increase

Recreation operations and budget will be the sole focus of a 5-member elected board (instead of multiple schools or multiple departments).

Reduced complexities

Currently there are three elected boards that oversee parks and recreation lands and programs, two budgets, and two offices. Forming a rec district will reduce these complexities by having just one board oversee all of parks and recreation, with one budget, and one office.

Both communities/departments will be on equal ground - starting anew instead of joining an existing structure

We have two great recreation departments that many people in our community are very supportive of. Instead of selecting one department over the other, we want to bring the best of both worlds together under a new roof.

Community decision

It is important to us that the community be able to weigh in on the future of recreation directly, through Australian ballot.Other options did not require a community vote.

Eliminate redundancies (programs, brochures, communications, etc.).

Potential for cost savings

In the near term things like just one brochure each season and just one postage bill. In the long term, one department will be able to assess operational efficiencies for the new district by having everything housed together, with oneBudget.

Long-term stability

Governance cannot change in the future simply by a municipal board’s decision, but will need both board and voter approval.

One-stop shopping

This will reduce confusion and frustrations for residents, whereas in the current system they have to go to 81 Main Street for an Indian Brook pass and 75 Maple Street for a Maple Street Pool Pass, and pay non-resident fees at EJRP even though their mailing address says “Essex Junction.” There will be one phone number, one website, one brochure, and one set of consistent programs, policies, staff, and pricing.

Equity in community

In terms of the programs that are offered, the options available, pricing, and taxation.

Ability to “house” other initiatives

Now & in the future: farmer’s market, senior center, etc.

In line with the spirit of recent consolidation and unification efforts

Examples include one municipal manager, consolidated storm water treatment, combined public works, unified municipal finance, and unified schools. We recognize that the unification of other municipal departments has happened with them staying under the existing municipalities. However, we currently do not have two municipal departments to consider. One department is municipal and one is operated by the school district. Recreation is not like the other municipal services. It requires a different lens and line of thinking to address where our community is currently and what path forward will honor what we have developed over the past 45-years.​

Options Explored

The Committee looked at seven different governance models including 2 options keeping EJRP and EPR separate and 5 options for consolidation. Below is a summary of the options and the pros and concerns the RGSC identified during their evaluations.

BIG PICTURE OPTION

PROS

CONCERNS

Maintain Separate​Departments

​-Maintains status quo of having two separate recreation departments

​-Maintains current tax structure/no increases due to balancing out Town and Village

​-Continues having two recreation departments serving overlapping area

-Both departments would need to vie for School Space in new consolidated district

-Continues resident and taxpayer confusion

-Continues non-resident fees at EJRP for Town outside the Village residents

-Continues spread of parks and recreation governance and dollars over multiple entities

-Not aligned with general community direction of consolidating schools/municipal services

-Likely that the discussion of consolidation would occur again in a few years resulting in a second governance transition for EJRP

​-Does not address tax inequity between Village and Town

GOVERNANCE MODELS (RELATED TO MAINTAINING SEPARATE)

MODEL

PROS (in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

MAINTAIN SEPARATE:​EJRP as a non-profit-​Form a non-profit corporation that would operate recreation in the Village

​-None Identified

​-Concerns of oversight and transparency of large amount of public tax dollars

-Inability to bond for future improvements

-Lack of direct accountability to public

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

MAINTAIN SEPARATE:​EJRP under Village municipality-​Move operation of EJRP from school district to Village municipality

​-Initial ease of transition with the same tax base & same service area -Continuity of programs

​-Both departments report to same municipal manager

​-Uncertainty of budget vote as a separate article

​-Budget is passed via voice vote with a typically smaller voter representation than Australian ballot

-Lack of public support as Village Residents recently fought to keep EJRP under the School District rather than the Municipality

-Concern of rec related funds not solely being used for recreation or to minimize recreation tax increases

BIG PICTURE OPTION

PROS

CONCERNS

ConsolidateDepartments

​-Opportunity to combine the best aspects of both departments into one

-Bring about tax equity for Village and Town outside the Village taxpayers

-Reduce confusion of two rec departments

-All of Essex would be served as residents signing up at the same time and paying resident fees

-Aligns with general community direction of consolidating schools/municipal services

-One stop shopping for recreation services

-Program options and provision equity across the entire Essex community

-Elimination of duplicate services

-Efficiencies may be realized by looking at all parks and recreation related expenditures under one budget

​-Realizing tax equity will result in an increase for Town outside the Village taxpayers

GOVERNANCE MODELS (RELATED TO CONSOLIDATING)

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONSOLIDATE:As a non-profit-​Form a non-profit corporation that would operate recreation for Essex

​-None Identified

-Concerns of oversight and transparency of large amount of public tax dollars

-Inability to bond for future improvements​​-Lack of direct accountability to public

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONSOLIDATE:​Through an interlocal contract- ​Create a contract for the two communities to provide parks and recreation services together under a joint system of oversight

​-Both communities on equal footing from the start

​-Challenges of having two boards providing oversight

-Uncertainty of childcare services being maintained at current level

-Lack of permanence of solution/potential for future change

​-Concern of rec related funds not solely being used for recreation or to minimize recreation tax increases

-Does not require a public vote to enter into

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONSOLIDATE:​Under Town municipality-​Bring EJRP under the Town municipality

​-Existing structure for operating a parks and recreation department

​-Identifies one recreation department over the other

-EJRP merges under the smaller EPR department

-EPR not familiar with offering childcare programming

-Budget is contained within Town operating budget and not a separate article

-Budget is passed via voice vote with a typically smaller voter representation than Australian ballot

-Concern of rec related funds not solely being used for recreation or to minimize recreation tax increases

​-Potential lack of community support as Village Residents recently fought to keep EJRP under the School District rather that their local municipality

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONSOLIDATE:​Under unified school district-​Both departments combine and operate under the new school district

​-Existing structure for operating a parks and recreation department

-Same childcare provider throughout community -Continuation of school relations and programming

-Recreation staff would be school employees making shared staffing easier

-One independent budget voted on by voters by Australian ballot

​-Rec related funds are used solely for recreation

​-Concerns expressed by UU board members who were not sure if Rec aligns with school mission

-Concerns of whether or not all rec services including parks, pools, seniors, etc. should fall under schools

​-Concerns about serving only two of the three communities in the new school district, leaving Westford out

MODEL

PROS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONCERNS(in addition to Big Picture)

CONSOLIDATE:​Form a Union Municipal District-​Both departments combine and operate as a new municipality

​-Both communities on equal footing starting a new department

-Forming a new District has to be approved by voters​-Stable/permanent solution

-Increased public transparency with one independent budget voted on by voters by Australian ballot

-Could house other initiatives in the future

-Increased recreation oversight with a 5 member board of residents elected from the overall community of Essex and executive director focused just on recreation

​-Rec related funds are used solely for recreation and to minimize recreation tax increases by allowing dollars earned through highly attended programs to help minimize cost and lower tuition for other offerings

​-Adds another elected board and government entity to the community

​-Potential additional administration costs

The content for this website has been created by the Recreation Governance Study Committee as a way to provide the public with the information that they need to make an informed decision about whether or not to form a union municipal district between the Village of Essex Junction and Town of Essex on December 13, 2016. Questions may be submitted on the FAQ's page.